Some mysterious Marian verses

[NeedImprovement]

I love this thread. It is Mary who alone who has from Her Son the power to save us(to Jesus through Mary so as to not get some crazy person insulting me that I adore Mary).

But, there is something which I am rather fond of and which in no way contradicts CHurch teaching: it is that, maybe the Blessed Virgin is actually the Catholic Church Herself. That is, Mary and the Church are one and the same thing.

Hi philipmarie.

I understand what you’re saying here , but I think, because of the way we define the “Church” we need a different choice of words to express part of those sentiments. We need to follow the initial approach of St. Gabriel, and the Church and consider the Blessed Virgin’s Motherhood first. But I don’t think we can say Mary Herself is actually the Church.

We can say that Mary and the Church are inseparable. We can also say that without one of us, the Church would continue to exist, but without the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Church would not exist, because She was God’s chosen instrument so that He could become truly a man. She is the Spiritual Vessel – as said of Her when we invoke her aid in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In general, the Church is defined as the people of God – all those who share a love and belief in our Lord Jesus Christ. An expanded definition can be found here
excerpt :
CHURCH.
The faithful of the whole world. This broad definition can be understood in various senses all derived from the Scriptures, notably as the community of believers, the kingdom of God, and the Mystical Body of Christ … These include the faithful on earth, those in purgatory who are not yet fully purified, and the saints in heaven … Since the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church has been defined as a union of human beings who are united by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by participation of and in the same sacraments under the direction of their lawful pastors, especially of the one representative of Christ on earth, the Bishop of Rome … At the Second Vatican Council this concept of the Church was recognized as the objective reality that identifies the fullness of the Roman Catholic Church. But it was qualified subjectively so as to somehow include all who are baptized and profess their faith in Jesus Christ. They are the People of God, whom he has chosen to be his own and on whom he bestows the special graces of his providence. (Etym. Greek kyriakon, church; from kyriakos, belonging to the Lord.)

At the foot of the Cross , the Blessed Virgin Mary became the Mother of all of us, even of those who refuse Her – even of those who don’t know Her. In that sense, we can say that she really does dwell in the very Heart of the Church.

She also is officially named Mother of The Church throughout Church history, and most recently by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II

So you can appreciate how, according to the definition of “Church”, we can’t really use words which might be mistakenly interpreted as being completely interchangeable with “Blessed Virgin Mary”. It’s kind of a delicate area . You might get arguments like :

• Mary is named Mother of the Church, how could she confer that name upon herself, and how could she be mother of herself ?
• The “Church” is the souls in Purgatory too…how could Mary be another soul and how can She constantly be in Purgatory if she was assumed into Heaven ?

But now that the distinction has been made, you’ll be happy to know that our present Pope Benedict XVI , even when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, agrees with what you say. He just uses a slightly different manner of wording it. He said it (and a whole lot more) here

an excerpt from that linked article:

Continuing his synthesis, Ratzinger lists a fifth point: “To use the very formulations of Vatican II, Mary is ‘figure,’ ‘image’ and ‘model’ of the Church. Beholding her the Church is shielded against the aforementioned masculinized model that views her as an instrument for a program of social-political action. In Mary, as figure and archetype, the Church again finds her own visage as Mother and cannot degenerate into the complexity of a party, an organization or a pressure group in the service of human interests, even the noblest. If Mary no longer finds a place in many theologies and ecclesiologies, the reason is obvious: they have reduced faith to an abstraction. And an abstraction does not need a Mother.”

 

[NeedImprovement]

…I am not comfortable with the idea of having Jesus as my Spouse. Obcviously, I love my ‘dear little Child Jesus’ but, you can understand my aversion to this thesis. True, many men Saints loved being called Spouses of Christ, but I think it is more becoming for men to be Spouses of the Blessed Virgin and for the women to be Spouses of Christ(thids applies also to those who are sacramentally married, for even these can be Spuses of Mary and Jesus. Concepcion Cabrera de Armida said something about getting mystically married sometime in her married life, for example). It is even more natural and mor ein comformity with the order of nature…

Being a man, I’ve had to do a few mental gymnastics in that area as well. But as a Mother, the Blessed Virgin can appeal to all of us.

As to considering ones’ self a spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary , in St. Louis de Montfort’s book The Secret of the Rosary among some of the great mystical accounts, there is one concerning Blessed Alan de la Roche which stands out (to read it within context, scroll down to “Eighth Rose” at the linked site). Here’s the excerpt:

“…She taught him how to say the Rosary, explaining its value and the fruits to be gained by it and gave him a great and glorious privilege: the honor of being called her new spouse. As a token of her chaste love for him she placed a ring upon his finger and necklace made of her own hair about his neck and gave him a Rosary.”

 

[cwelycz]

See this website…

markmallett.com/embracinghopetv/archives/178

for an interesting answer to your question.

Peace.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I love this thread. It is Mary who alone who has from Her Son the power to save us(to Jesus through Mary so as to not get some crazy person insulting me that I adore Mary).

Praise God .

I am not comfortable with the idea of having Jesus as my Spouse. Obcviously, I love my ‘dear little Child Jesus’ but, you can understand my aversion to this thesis. True, many men Saints loved being called Spouses of Christ, but I think it is more becoming for men to be Spouses of the Blessed Virgin and for the women to be Spouses of Christ(thids applies also to those who are sacramentally married, for even these can be Spuses of Mary and Jesus. Concepcion Cabrera de Armida said something about getting mystically married sometime in her married life, for example). It is even more natural and mor ein comformity with the order of nature.

I share your desire to speak of Mary as my spouse. I already often think about her that way, just as I think of the Church as a most beautiful lover.

I’m waiting, though, to see if there are any saints who have spoken of Mary in this way, other than Joseph. I don’t want to make a mistake. Even though I know terms like “spouse” or “mother” are human terms we’re using to describe spiritual and mystical realities, so it may not be essential to know for sure that one such usage is valid. I’m just being careful .

This, I think explains why the ‘sign’ of revelation seems to speak simultanously about the Blessed Virgin and the Church. What do you think.

I think that what you and I think doesn’t matter much. We aren’t a religion where we come up with new doctrines. Rather, we should just come to understand more and more deeply what the Church, Doctors and Saints teach.

But, there is something which I am rather fond of and which in no way contradicts CHurch teaching: it is that, maybe the Blessed Virgin is actually the Catholic Church Herself.

You need to define more clearly what you mean by that. Do you mean that I have no personality of my own, because it is all Mary’s? That I don’t think my own thoughts, for they are all Mary’s, and that whenever I sin, she bears the guilt, because it was really she that sinned? I doubt this is what you mean, so I’d just like some clarity on what you mean.

There are distinctions between persons in the unity of God. The unity we seek with one another, and which God gives us, is the unity of the Trinity (John 17:22). This is an incredibly deep unity, and the unity between Mary and the Church is especially deep, according to the Church.

The reason we don’t say that the Church “is” Jesus Christ, even though it is clearly Christ’s Body and is full of His Life and nature, is that this would contain some unclarity and leave room for people to fall into Hindu errors, coming to think, “I am God.” The saints speak of us being divinized through our deepening unity with Christ, and Paul actually says, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” It could be said that the Church is Jesus Christ, so long as we understand what we’re saying when we say that. St. Louis de Montfort comes close to saying the Church is Jesus, when he says Mary gave birth to the entire Church when she gave birth to Jesus, because the Church is His Body, and what kind of mother gives birth only to a head?

But there is a difference between our growing union with Christ and an assertion of our own deity. Saying, “I am Jesus,” would be false, because in God, there remains a distinction of persons. This allows deeper love than would be possible if we all were one and the same person. My own person remains, even as there are distinct Persons in the Trinity. That said, there is a definite and powerful unity between the Church and Jesus Christ. In some very important senses, they are one and the same. The Church is Jesus’ Body, bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh, through the Eucharist.

St. Louis de Montfort points out that Mary is completely consumed in Jesus’ Life. She is full of His love and virtue to a degree beyond the possibility of any human to comprehend.
She feels His desires, she loves with His love, His thoughts are in her mind, though she is still a distinct person from Him, with her own character and personality. Jesus and Mary are unimaginably one.

There is also a powerful mystical unity between Mary and the Church. You are right in identifying this reality, which is clear, and which the Church has talked about in official teaching.

She is not us, for in Christ, there is distinction of persons. At the same time, Mary is deeply, deeply united with us. St. Louis talks about how we need to have Mary living in us. This corresponds to her deep unity with the Church. I want to think Mary’s thoughts, pray Mary’s prayers, feel Mary’s feelings, love with Mary’s love, be perfectly united with her, adoring Christ in her and through her. I will remain a unique person, and yet I will be consumed with Jesus through Mary.

One could say, “Jesus is the Church,” or “Mary is the Church,” but these ways of describing reality are imprecise and could lead people to error. So I don’t recommend using them. To say that Jesus, Mary and all of us are very, very deeply mystically united, though . . . that is perfectly valid and true, and could lead people to ask for more information, in which case we can share more and help people to grow in knowledge about the beautiful unities God has made, without risking falling sideways into heresy.

I’m going to write up a chapter here from Catholic theologian Scott Hahn about the unity between Mary and the Church. He provides official Church teaching on the kind of unity with the Church Mary possesses.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

"Hail:

Who makes the Church a Mother?

Through the Church’s Scripture, Tradition, and dogma, we come to know a mother. We come to know the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yet we must be careful here. For it’s not so much the Church that gives us Mary, as Mary who gives us the Church. More precisely, as Mother of the Church, she gives us her divine Son through the Church, and through the Church she raises up new brothers and sisters to Christ.

Biblical typology leads us to see Mary as the New Eve, the mother of all the living, the mother of the covenant Family of God. Typology shows us Mary as the Bride of Christ, too. Yet, at the culmination of the scriptures, in the book of Revelation, that bride and mother is identified with the Church as well.

Revelation shows us the mystical unity between the woman who labors to give birth to Christ (and His siblings) and the bride o the Lamb unveiled at the climax of history. The mother, the bride, the woman is Mary. The mother, the bride, the woman is the metropolis of the New Jerusalem: the Church.

Our Lady of Good Council

I said that Mary’s identification with the Church is something mystical, but that does not mean it is metaphorical. Biblical typology is more than a mere literary convention, for the Bible is more than literature; the Bible is history. Yet typology is more than historical; it’s prophetic. Still, it’s more than prophecy; it’s reality. And even more than reality, it’s eternity. Thus, when we speak of Mary as Mother of the Church and archetype of the Church, we are speaking of a permanent truth, a person vividly real and a truth that’s essential to God’s plan for the cosmos . . .

. . . The concluding section of [Lumen Gentium] is titled: “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.”

“This Holy Synod,” it states, “in expounding the doctrine on the Church, in which the divine Redeemer works salvation, intends to describe with diligence both the role of the Blessed Virgin in the mystery of the Incarnate Word and the Mystical Body, and the duties of redeemed mankind toward the Mother of God, who is mother of Christ and mother of men, particularly the faithful” (Lumen Gentium 54).

The document then pursues a line of argument similar to the one followed in this book, examining Mary in light of theology, typology, dogma, and finally ecclesiology, the theological study of the Church. The council endorses Mary’s typological foreshadowing in the Old Testament as well as her singular and essential role in the New Testament (no. 55). The discussion culminates, however, in an examination of Mary’s ongoing role in the life of the Church.

Membership and Mothership

How does Mary relate to the Church?

“‘She is the mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head’” (Lumen Gentium 53, quoting Saint Augustine).

“The Blessed Virgin is . . . intimately united with the Church” (no. 63).

“She is . . . a preeminent and singular member of the Church” (no. 53).

She is the Church’s “type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity” (no. 53).

“The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother” (no. 53).

Mary, then, is a mother to the family of God. She is a model for that family, and she actively participates in the children’s “birth and education” (no. 63). As mother, she is a member of the family as, with the Father, she gives the family its particular identity.

The Church, too, is mother – but this is a function of its relation to Christ and Mary. The Church depends upon its intimate union with Mary, and the Church fulfills its own motherhood only insofar as it imitates and honors Mary’s virginal motherhood.

“The Church indeed, contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother.” The Church, with Mary, is also a Virgin, who preserves and protects the faith that has been given to her by Jesus, her spouse. “Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, [the Church] keeps with virginal purity an entire faith, a firm hope, and a sincere charity” (no. 64).

Completed on the next post . . .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

A Glimmer of Glory

What do theologians mean, though, when they refer to Mary as an archetype? Put simply, it means that she is a type’s ultimate fulfillment (see Catechism, nos. 967, 972).

As we’ve seen throughout this book, the Old Testament types foreshadowed New Testament realities. But the New Testament realities, in turn, foreshadowed heavenly glories. That’s why the Book of Revelation is such an important book and the capstone of the Bible. It deals with the ultimate fulfillment of all earthly types. It shows the glory toward which God is drawing all history and all creation.

Mary is a central figure in the Apocalypse because - assumed into heaven, where she reigns – Mary is now the fulfillment of the reality of which the Church itself is merely a type. She is the Virgin and Mother, the Bride of Christ, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the metropolis that is the City of God. She is the heavenly archetype. The Church–the rest of us–must struggle toward those mystical realities during all our days on this earth.

Thus says the council:

While in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues . . . Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope, and in charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. (Lumen Gentium 65)

Our struggle is individual, but it is communal, too. As members of God’s family, we are concerned for one another and concerned to bring many others into the family. Vatican Council II holds Mary up, again, as a model for the apostolate – the model of our Christian outreach.

Indeed, our efforts at evangelization must have a Marian component. Evangelization should begin with Marian prayer and it should be suffused with Marian doctrine and devotion. For evangelization is all about building up a family, and no one can belong to a family without honoring the family’s mother. Moreover, as the Second Vatican Council pointed out, Mary plays an indispensable role in each of her children’s growth in holiness.

Scott Hahn describes very effectively the Church’s teaching on many of the deep mystical unities of the family of Christ.

Jesus is a member of the Church, Mary is a member of the Church, and all of us are members of the Church. Jesus and Mary’s life is in all of us. The unities our King and Queen have with all their family are incredibly deep, beautiful and profound.

 

[Mathetes2010]

I have a question for anyone here who might know the answer…But then, later in the chapter, we read of the woman making another flight into a desert…[Revelation 12:13-18]…The verses above, I fail to understand…I’ve heard speculation that the woman being given wings like an eagle to fly into the desert is a reference to her Assumption. Maybe that is a secondary meaning, but the difficulty I have with that being a primary meaning is twofold. One is that a “desert” seems a strange way to refer to Heaven, and the second, more important, reason is that the verse appears to describe this place of protection against the devil as being a temporary respite, followed in verses 15 and 16 by more battle…If anyone knows if the saints have written on this part of the chapter, I’d be curious to see what they say as well.

St. Epiphanius (310-403) stated the following regarding this passage in reference to Mary’s possible Assumption (which was not defined at this time):

On the other hand, when the Apocalypse of John says, ‘And the dragon hastened against the woman who had brought forth the male child, and there were given to her an eagle’s wings, and she was carried off into the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her’ (Rev 12:13-14), it may be that this is fulfilled in her (Epiphanius, Panarion haer 78, n. 10).

Epiphanius offers no explanation of the passage but only adds that:

However, I do not assert this absolutely, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain, for the sake of that valued vessel without compare, to prevent anyone from harboring carnal thoughts in her regard. Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had had no carnal intercourse…(Epiphanius, Panarion haer 78, n. 11).

 

[Mathetes2010]

Oecumenius (sixth century) authored the first Greek Commentary on Revelation. He stated the following concerning the first verses of Revelation 12:

The vision intends to describe more completely to us the circumstances concerning the antichrist…. However, since the incarnation of the Lord, which made the world his possession and subjected it, provided a pretext for Satan to raise this one up and to choose him [as his instrument] – for the antichrist will be raised to cause the world again to fall from Christ and to persuade it to desert to Satan – and since moreover His fleshly conception and birth was the beginning of the incarnation of the Lord, the vision gives a certain order and sequence to the material that it is going to discuss and begins the discussion from the fleshly conception of the Lord by portraying for us the mother of God. What does he say? “And a sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sum and the moon was under her feet.” As we said, it is speaking about the mother of our Savior. The vision appropriately depicts her as in heaven and not on the earth, for she is pure in soul and body, equal to an angel and a citizen of heaven. She possesses God who rests in heaven – “for heaven is my throne” – it says yet she is flesh, although she has nothing in common with the earth nor is there any evil in her. Rather, she is exalted, wholly worthy of heaven, even though she possesses our human nature and substance. For the Virgin is consubstantial with us. Let the impious teaching of Eutyches, which make the fanciful claim that the Virgin is of another substance than we, be excluded from the belief of the holy courts together with his other opinions. And what does it mean that she was clothed with the sun and the moon was under her feet? The holy prophet Habakkuk, prophesied concerning the Lord, saying, “The sun was lifted up, and the moon stood still in its place for light.” calling Christ our Savior, or at least the proclamation of the gospel, the “sun of righteousness”. When He was exalted and increased, the moon – that is, the law of Moses – “stood still” and no longer received any addition. For after the appearance of Christ, it no longer received proselytes from the nations as before but endured diminution and cessation. You will, therefore, observe this with me, that also the holy Virgin is covered by the spiritual sun. For this is what the prophet calls the Lord when concerning Israel he says, “Fire fell upon them, and they did not see the sun.” But the moon, that is, the worship and citizenship according to the law, being subdued and become much less than itself, is under her feet, for it has been conquered by the brightness of the gospel. And rightly does he call the things of the law by the word “moon”, for they have been given light by the sun, that is, Christ just as the physical moon is given its light by the physical sun. The point would have been better made had it said not that the woman was clothed with the sun but that the woman enclothed the sun, which was enclosed in her womb. However, that the vision might show that the Lord, who was being carried in the womb, was the shelter of His own mother and the whole creation, it says that He was enclothing the woman. Indeed, the holy angel said something similar to the holy Virgin: “The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” For to overshadow is to protect, and to enclothe is the same according to power.

 

[Mathetes2010]

Oecumenius is giving the 6th Century Christian Church’s belief in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. Much like Epiphanius, he uses Revelation 12 indicating that the passage presupposes the belief.

Later I’ll post my own interpretation of this passage of Revelation.

 

[philipmarie]

I am happy that you agree with me. No, Mary can’t be the Mother of Herself, but when I say that She is the Mother of the Church, I do not mean the mystic Church(Herself) but the Church Militant(made up of the Baptised members). And yes, it is found in tradition that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the suffering souls in purgatory, and yes,She does descend there to comfort them but, to be their Mother, She doesn’t even have to go down there. The only people whom She is not the Mother of are of those souls who are in hell. She was their Mother, to use the words of Fr. Garrigou Lagrange.

I don’t think this is a new doctrine but an addition. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not a new doctrine which was not handed down to us by the Apostles. It is an addition, a new discovery in Catholic theology. We have the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God; since She is the Mothe rof God, then there must be something more to this person called ‘the Mother of God’. Could She have been Immaculately concieved? And we know She was.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am happy that you agree with me. No, Mary can’t be the Mother of Herself, but when I say that She is the Mother of the Church, I do not mean the mystic Church(Herself) but the Church Militant(made up of the Baptised members). And yes, it is found in tradition that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the suffering souls in purgatory, and yes,She does descend there to comfort them but, to be their Mother, She doesn’t even have to go down there. The only people whom She is not the Mother of are of those souls who are in hell. She was their Mother, to use the words of Fr. Garrigou Lagrange.

I don’t think this is a new doctrine but an addition. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not a new doctrine which was not handed down to us by the Apostles. It is an addition, a new discovery in Catholic theology. We have the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God; since She is the Mothe rof God, then there must be something more to this person called ‘the Mother of God’. Could She have been Immaculately concieved? And we know She was.

Well, in my opinion, OF COURSE Mary is the Mother of the Church.

Isn’t this what Revelation 12 tells us?

***17 ****** Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments ***and bear witness to Jesus.

 

[Mathetes2010]

That’s just a theory. I don’t understand these verses, or the organization of the chapter, all that well. Any additional ideas or information would be appreciated!

I previously mentioned that I would post a commentary on Revelation 12. It’s proven to be quite a task. I will post in sections as I have time. The first post will concentrate on the identity of the mother, Son, and dragon of this chapter.

1And a great sign was seen in the heaven, a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars, 2and being with child she doth cry out, travailing and pained to bring forth. 3And there was seen another sign in the heaven, and, lo, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his head seven diadems, 4and his tail doth draw the third of the stars of the heaven, and he did cast them to the earth; and the dragon did stand before the woman who is about to bring forth, that when she may bring forth, her child he may devour; 5and she brought forth a male child, who is about to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, and caught away was her child unto God and His throne (Revelation 12:1-5)

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation of these passages, one must first correctly identify the subjects in particular the mother, the Son, and the dragon. Let’s begin with this task before continuing. The easiest figure to discern is the great red dragon because John actually reveals his identity as the devil:

9and the great dragon was cast forth – the old serpent, who is called Devil,' and the Adversary,’ who is leading astray the whole world – he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him (Revelation 12:9; see also Revelation 20:2).

From this identification we should take note of the following. First, John identifies the dragon as a concrete person. In other words, the dragon is not representing a collective group as the primary interpretation of this passage. We know from Scripture that the devil is an individual angel and more specifically a fallen sinful angel (Ezekiel 28:1-26; Isaiah 14:12; Matthew 25:41; Luke 10:18; John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:14; 1 Timothy 3:6; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 8:10; in reference to sinning angels in general see Job 4:18; 15:15; Psalm 78:49; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6).

Second, although Scripture is clear that the devil is a person with an angelic nature, John uses imagery to explain certain qualities or characteristics particular to the devil. In reality he possess, as do all other angels, the same outward spiritual appearance peculiar to the angelic nature. The Bible compares this outward appearance to bright stars (Job 25:4, 5; Isaiah 14:12, 13; Daniel 8:9-11; Jude 1:13; Revelation 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1; 8:10-12; 9:1; 12:4). Yet spiritually speaking, the Scriptures reveal to us what God sees as He peers directly into the heart of His creatures. As such, the Scriptures present the devil as a serpent (Genesis 3:1-14; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 20:2; as are his followers see Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Luke 3:7), a devouring lion (1 Peter 5:8), and a terrifying dragon (Revelation 12:3-17; 13:2, 4, 11; 16:13; 20:2). We will explore these characteristics in more detail after indentifying the rest of the personages of Revelation 12.

Most interpreters will now focus on identifying the Son who is described as “a male child, who is about to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, and caught away was her child unto God and His throne.” The language of ruling with a rod of iron is reserved primarily for the Messiah in the Bible thus easily narrowing down this figure to Jesus (Psalm 2:8-10; Revelation 2:27; 19:13-16). In fact, John himself reveals the One that is to rule with a rod of iron:

11And I saw the heaven having been opened, and lo, a white horse, and he who is sitting upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness doth he judge and war,…13and he is arrayed with a garment covered with blood, and his name is called, The Word of God…15and out of his mouth doth proceed a sharp sword, that with it he may smite the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and he doth tread the press of the wine of the wrath and the anger of God the Almighty, 16and he hath upon the garment and upon his thigh the name written, `King of kings, and Lord of lords’ (Revelation 19:11-16)

There’s no need to expound too much on these verses as they are self evident to anyone that knows John’s writings. The “Word of God” is another name for the Son (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1) as is the title “King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Revelation 17:14). Additionally, to further confirm the identity of the Son, Christ is said to have been taken up to God, as was the Child in Revelation:

16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory (1 Timothy 3:16).

continued in the next post…

 

[Mathetes2010]

As a side note, the Scriptures commonly speak of being “taken” away by God in reference to being bodily assumed into Heaven (see Genesis 5:24; Luke 9:51; Acts 1:2, 9, 11, 22). There are other ways that Scripture references assumptions such as the Archangel’s command to “come here” (Revelation 11:12; 17:1-3; 21:9, 10). Assumptions are linked with being “exalted” as well (of our Lord’s Ascension see Acts 2:33; 5:31; Philippians 2:6-9; Hebrews 7:26). However, assumptions are not limited to these descriptions (). The Scriptures also use “taken” in reference to a supernatural transportation of man from one location to another by a supernatural being (Genesis 2:15; Ezekiel 3:14; 8:3; 37:1; 43:5; Matthew 4:5, 8; 24:40, 41; Luke 17:33-36; Revelation 19:20). Catholics usually refer to Christ’s rising to Heaven as His “Ascension” and God’s taking of believers as “assumptions.” The distinction is made so that it is clearly understood that ascension is related to rising by one’s own power while assumptions relate to being raised by an external power. Since Jesus is both God and man, Scripture at times refers to his elevation to Heaven as being taken by God or assumed (Luke 9:51; Acts 1:2, 9, 11, 22; 1 Timothy 3:16) and at other times as ascending on His own power (John 3:13; 6:62; 20:17; Acts 2:34; Romans 10:6; Ephesians 4:7-10). Likewise, angels by their own power are said to ascend into Heaven (Genesis 28:12; Judges 13:20; John 1:51; Revelation 7:2).

We can conclude that the Son spoken of in Revelation 12 is Jesus. He alone fits the description of the male child in all its dimensions. Similarly as with the first figure, the Son turns out to be a singular and individual person as opposed to a collective group. However, with the Son there is a difference with His description. First is that it uses an upcoming prophecy of His rule, which is more fully explained later in Revelation, to depict Him and this is followed by a historical past event (i.e. the Ascension). Second, the Son is not portrayed in elaborate symbolic imagery as is the case with the devil. In reviewing this passage one will note that the Son is spoken of in passing by John. In fact, this chapter of Revelation is predominantly about the mother and as we will see her conflict with the serpent. It may be that John described the Child in verse 5 utilizing the most apparent language, as opposed to using his typical symbolic descriptions persistent throughout Revelation, to serve as an identifier for the mother. At any rate, we can now turn to the identification of the woman.

After establishing that the Son is Jesus, it would only seem logical to believe that Mary is the mother being referred to in the passage. For most Protestants, this interpretation is not acceptable. The woman is depicted as glorified to such an extent that it makes the Catholic view of Mary not only plausible but probable hence the complete reluctance to accept a Marian interpretation of the passage. We can see why they avoid this reading at all costs.

In favor of this interpretation, first is that the dragon and the Son represent an individual personage as opposed to a collective group as the primary interpretation. One would expect that the mother would likewise follow the same scheme and not shift back and forth.

Second, John never refers to Mary by her name in any of his writings. In fact, he addresses her always as “mother” or “woman” (John 2:1, 3-5; 2:12; 6:42; 19:25-27). The woman/mother figure in John’s writings is therefore Mary. This cannot be said of other unnamed characters in John’s Gospel since Mary figures throughout his writing.

As a side note, John similarly never addresses himself by name throughout his own Gospel. He simply refers to himself as the beloved disciple (John 3:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20). Some Catholic and Protestant theologians believe that John does not identify himself by name in his Gospel because he is treating himself as a representation or type of all true believers. John’s Gospel is recognized as the theological Gospel because it uses highly symbolic themes. It does not follow the same order of events or reproduce the same stories like the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A large portion of the Gospel concentrates on the “signs” or miracles of Jesus to which John assigns great theological significance. This connection to Revelation will be reviewed when explaining chapter 12. Similarly as John is considered a representation of believers in his Gospel, Catholic theologians extend this same approach to Mary in that she is portrayed as a representation or type of the Church. The Church as we are instructed in Scripture is our mother (Galatians 4:26; Revelation 21:2). As was mentioned earlier, John always identifies Mary only as mother or woman. Therefore, this is where we derive the spiritual motherhood of Mary in relation to John’s Gospel (John 19:26). Christ was hanging on the cross when he spoke these words to John and Mary. Christ knew, as well as did His Apostles, that he would have to suffer and die for all men (Matthew 16:21; 17:12; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; 24:46). Jesus could have made preparations for His mother’s care prior to the crucifixion. However, He chose to do so while on the cross while redeeming mankind. We can be assured that John assigned great theological significance to this event based on his inclusion to the Gospel and the time and place it happened.

Third, and most importantly, in the rest of New Testament, it is Mary alone that is identified as the mother of Jesus (see for example Matthew 1:18; 2:11; 13:55; Luke 2:34; John 19:25; Acts 1:14). No one or nothing else is identified as the mother of the Messiah.

continued in the next post…

 

[Mathetes2010]

Fourth, it is certain that in the initial preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles (Tradition) that Mary was identified as the mother of the Messiah as well (Acts 1:14). Through Luke, we have an example of the Apostolic preaching containing the teaching that Mary was the mother of the Messiah which he later penned in both of his writings. Luke was the author of the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel which bears his name and he was also a disciple of the Apostle Paul (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24). Luke may have received his knowledge from Paul his mentor. He may have learned this as one of the many traditions or teachings that Paul passed on to his hearers which Paul himself did not record anywhere in Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). We know that Luke probably learned certain things from a firsthand source as well. This includes information directly from Mary herself which he incorporated in his writings. For example, Luke records the inward thoughts of Mary which were only known to her (Luke 2:19, 51). Additionally, Luke may have received supplemental information from the many gospels that were written prior to his Gospel which were written by eyewitness of Jesus (although of these previous writings only Matthew and Mark are canonical; John was written after Luke). Luke states:

1Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, 2as they did deliver to us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word, – 3it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus, 4that thou mayest know the certainty of the things wherein thou wast instructed (Luke 1:1-4).

From this passage we know for certain that Theophilus was instructed that Mary was the mother of Christ in the Apostolic preaching. Luke here is stating that he is writing this Gospel to Theophilus to ensure him of the teachings he received. Since Luke contains the infancy narrative, it is proper to conclude that Theophilus received the teaching that Mary was the mother of Jesus prior to the formation of the canonical Gospels. Consequently, we can surmise that anytime a listener of the Gospel came across the concept of the mother of the Messiah (either in writing or by word of mouth), it was Mary alone that came to the forefront. Simply stated the most natural referent to the mother of the Messiah in Revelation would be the mother of the Messiah in the Gospels.

Therefore, Mary is the first and most logical interpretation of the mother of Revelation. Interpreters typically follow the rule of thumb to first look to the most logical, simple, and literal understanding of a passage. It is only when an interpretation would contradict other portions of Scripture that an alternative interpretation is proposed. For this reason as was mentioned above, only an anti-Marian or anti-Catholic bias would preclude one from viewing this woman as Mary. Later we will cover the “birth pangs” concern that is brought up by both Protestants and some Catholics asserting that this is the mitigating factor against interpreting this woman as Mary.

Fifth, some have attempted to the view the woman strictly as Israel or the Church. However, these interpretations are not without their difficulties. For example, as noted above, the main characters of this chapter are individual persons as opposed to collective bodies. Also in regards to Israel, there is only a twofold connection with this vision. The first connection comes from the patriarch Joseph’s dream about the sun, the moon, and the 11 stars bowing to him which are a representation of Israel (the 12 star being Joseph himself; Genesis 37:9). Here the link is made from the celestial bodies named in the passage which envelope the woman. However, be that as it may, John is not quoting from Genesis 37:9 hence there is no guarantee that this interpretation is correct. This explanation carries weight only using symbolism and typology. However, without direct confirmation from other parts of Scripture, most interpreters shy away from such interpretation because one can establish any doctrine using this approach. Furthermore, John earlier in his work identifies the “stars” of Revelation as angels and not as the 12 patriarchs or tribes of Israel (Revelation 1:20). The second connection this vision has with Israel is that the Messiah was to come from this nation (Isaiah 11:1; Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6; John 7:42). However, this only begs the question. This prophecy was fulfilled through Mary because she was an Israelite living in Israel and gave birth to the Messiah. Hence any attempt to see Israel in this passage must be applied in its fullest sense first particularly to Mary and secondarily to Israel at large. Consequently, the interpretation of Israel as the woman forces a Marian focus on the passage. If the Marian aspect is removed altogether and only Israel is seen in a generic sense as the mother, there arises a major difficulty stemming from the seed of the woman who later in the chapter are said to be followers of Jesus (Revelation 12:17). Yet, we know that Israel as a nation emphatically denounce Jesus as Messiah. This is a contradiction that cannot be overcome or overlooked. What’s more, in Revelation, the Jews that rejected Christ are called “the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). For this reason the Israel interpretation sets one at odds with the rest of the book let alone the chapter.

Likewise the interpretation of the Church as the woman has a chronological difficulty to overcome. Here the woman is said to give birth to the Son. Conversely, Scripture confirms that Jesus established the Church and not the other way around (Matthew 16:18). He was the originator of the Christian Church.

continued in the next post…

 

[Mathetes2010]

The better approach is to see the woman as a concrete historical figure, as are the Son and the devil. At the same time, at another level similar to the dragon who is the second “sign” of chapter 12, she is also a symbol or sign representing God’s faithful remnant of believers throughout time. That is those faithful servants of God that followed his revelation from beginning to end in short the elect of God (and so there is no separation between those faithful of the Old and New Covenants). The historical figure is Mary of course. She alone in her person unifies the old faithful remnant of Israel (which the OT calls Zion) and the new faithful Israel (which the NT refers to as the elect in the Church) with the motherhood of Jesus. Mary alone fulfilled all three roles both physically and spiritually. She was a faithful daughter of Israel and was the first to accept Jesus into her heart and the only to accept Jesus into her womb (Luke 1:28-38). By accepting Mary as the personage in this passage the difficulties vanish. She being a faithful daughter of Israel and mother of the Messiah fulfils the imagery interplay between Revelation 12 and Genesis 37. In other words, it is precisely because the Israelite Mary gave birth to the Messiah that Revelation 12 can be said to be fulfilled and connected with Genesis 37.

On future posts, we will look at the difficulty posed by the labor pains of the woman. Afterward, we will look at the message of chapter 12.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank-you for these posts, Mathetes, and for the upcoming ones . This commentary is very good!

As I understand it, Mary’s birth pangs in Rev. 12 describe her anguish at Christ’s Passion, the sword that pierced her soul. This was the time when she gave birth to Christ in souls. It was from the Cross of Redemption that Jesus told the disciple, “behold your Mother.” Mary gave birth to the disciple, indeed, to all disciples, by offering up her Son for their Redemption at the Cross. This fulfilled the prophecy of 2 Maccabees 7, in which a mother offers up her seven sons to torment and martyrdom rather than urge them to break the Law. In the same way, Mary offered up her Son in sacrifice, preferring God’s will above anything.

Mary conceived the Church in this scene, and gave birth to Christ’s Resurrected Body. For His Body was laid to rest in a tomb that had never been used. As a Protestant theologian once pointed out, “He that was conceived in a virgin womb was raised in a virgin tomb.” The virgin tomb represents Mary’s womb. Also, His Body in the tomb was laid to rest on a slab. Luke tells us that there were two angels, one on either side of the slab, when the women came to the tomb. This reflects the structure of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was built to have two golden cherubim on either side of the Mercy Seat. The Mercy Seat of Christ’s tomb was the slab on which Mercy Himself lay; the angels on either side of the slab were the cherubim depicted on the ark.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Luke was quite interested in this fact, as can be seen from the close parallels between the Visitation in Luke 1 and the account of the ark’s visitation to Obed’s house and then its journey to Jerusalem, in 2 Samuel 6.

Luke is reflecting here, at the end of his Gospel, on the fact that the Ark of the New Covenant brought forth in her womb the Lord Jesus’ resurrected body. Interestingly, it is Luke that describes the birth and rearing of Jesus more than any of the other Gospel writers; similarly, he provides some of the deepest spiritual teaching on the birth of the resurrected body of Jesus. This resurrected body was the one Mary bore with pain, great, great pain, the pain of offering Him up in holocaust to God.

Mary’s sufferings were intimately united with the sufferings of the Redeemer, deeply united beyond our comprehension. The faith of the woman in 2 Maccabees 7 did not outmatch the faith of Mary. Mary offered up her Son, fulfilling the prophetic typology of that woman from Israelite history, and in this offering, the Ark of the New Covenant bore the Lord into His new Body and conceived His Life into the hearts of souls. It was at the Cross that the Church was conceived. It was at Pentecost that Mary, praying with the disciples, gave birth to Christ in her. Again, it was the Holy Spirit that came upon her, along with all the other disciples, and through her, the Spirit brought forth the Church.

Mary is always and eternally the Mother of Jesus. She is therefore our own Mother, because, like Paul, we say, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” We have become her children because we have become her Son, and He is her Child. We are deeply united with Jesus. When Jesus came to live in us, we became Mary’s children in a particular and beautiful way, because she is Jesus’ Mother.

Because Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, is always and eternally the Mother of Jesus, she also gave birth to His Resurrected Body through the birth pangs of the Passion. This is part of the reason why Luke took care to describe Ark typology for us, preceding both Jesus’ Nativity and His Resurrection. Luke is also the one who tells us of Simeon’s prophecy, “your soul too a sword shall pierce.” He reflects on Mary’s birth pangs of Redemption both at the beginning of his Gospel, during the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, and later when the dead Jesus lying in the tomb with the ark’s childbirth. Christ Himself is always Luke’s paramount focus, yet the underlying Mariology is intimately entwined with Luke’s magnificent Christology, in the narrative.

Revelation 12’s description of the woman suffering agony while she gives birth to Jesus Christ is a vivid representation of this mystical childbirth at the Passion which both Luke and John refer to.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

That’s interesting, Lief Erikson! On a side note, when comparing the Ark to Jesus, can we say that the events of the Ark being captured by the enemy of Israel and later returning and being welcomed joyfully by David and the people, stand for the dead, resurrection and joyfull receiving by the disciples of Jesus?

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s interesting, Lief Erikson! On a side note, when comparing the Ark to Jesus, can we say that the events of the Ark being captured by the enemy of Israel and later returning and being welcomed joyfully by David and the people, stand for the dead, resurrection and joyfull receiving by the disciples of Jesus?

Wow! That is incredible! I’m well familiar with Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant Typology but I never considered that aspect. The Phillistines capturing the Ark could represent Jesus’ three days in the Temple?

But, what do the golden hemorrhoids pre-figure?

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Wow! That is incredible! I’m well familiar with Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant Typology but I never considered that aspect. The Phillistines capturing the Ark could represent Jesus’ three days in the Temple?

But, what do the golden hemorrhoids pre-figure?

I just made it up, after reading the above post, so don’t put too much weight on it. I’m only an amateur exegist.

It makes for an interesting comparison though, especially considering the fact that the temple of the Phillistines ‘rejected’ the Ark (or rather, the Ark rejected the Phillistinian temple) and the Phillistines had to send it back, the same way the fish spit out Jonah and Hades spit out Jesus after three days.

 

[NotWorthy]

I just made it up, after reading the above post, so don’t put too much weight on it. I’m only an amateur exegist.

It makes for an interesting comparison though, especially considering the fact that the temple of the Phillistines ‘rejected’ the Ark (or rather, the Ark rejected the Phillistinian temple) and the Phillistines had to send it back, the same way the fish spit out Jonah and Hades spit out Jesus after three days.

OK, but I’m still trying to place the golden tumors (or hemorrhoids). For the life of me, I can’t find a link.